| | | | What to Expect from Trump Tonight: Berman | | President Trump's State of the Union address on Tuesday is expected to feature talk of a massive infrastructure project, his border wall, ramped up military spending and calls for fairer trade. If that sounds familiar, it should, writes Russell Berman in The Atlantic.
"A State of the Union address is a president's best opportunity to lay out his agenda to the public, to make an unfiltered case for his policies, and to exhort Congress to enact them into law. But the speech is only as good as the follow-through—issuing detailed proposals, implementing policy at the department and agency level, delivering a consistent public message, negotiating with lawmakers. And on that score, Trump's record is mixed," Berman writes.
"It's hardly unusual for presidents to repeat past proposals in their State of the Union addresses. The speeches often resemble rhetorical laundry lists, and it takes time to accomplish much of anything in this era of political polarization and congressional gridlock. Barack Obama implored Congress year after year to raise the minimum wage, overhaul immigration laws, and, yes, invest in infrastructure without success. But with Republicans in control of Washington, Trump can't blame an opposition party for the bulk of his agenda remaining undone. Without the follow-through of governance, the president's words from the House rostrum on Tuesday night won't carry very far, and we're likely to hear the same repackaged proposals in another year's time." - President Donald Trump is expected to deliver "eye-opening" remarks about his administration's efforts to curb Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program, a source told CNN.
"The President will talk about the North Korean threat in a 'strong and serious way,' the source said.
"It will be eye-opening," the source added, predicting the portion of the address dedicated to North Korea is likely to drive headlines on Wednesday.
"Trump's aides and allies now point to North Korea's recent decision to engage in talks with South Korea and participate in the upcoming Winter Olympics as evidence that the President's 'strategic rhetoric' is effective." - Whatever President Trump says Tuesday night, don't expect it to have much impact on how the public sees the administration, argues Julian Zelizer for CNN Opinion. This is an à la carte world, and people will pick and choose their analysis just like they do their TV shows.
"Gone are the days when all other programming ceased so that the president could make his speech, and anyone who wanted to watch television or listen to the radio had no other choice but to tune in," Zelizer writes.
"For those who are just looking for the highlights of Trump's speech, they are most likely going to be reading and watching analysis from their favorite news outlets. Even the short excerpts of Trump's speech that will be shared by millions on social media, do not add up to the kind of national reach that networks once commanded over the news."
| | Team Trump's Russia Sanctions Reasoning Has Some "Logical Holes": Blake | | The State Department's claim Monday that no new Russia sanctions are required at present, despite bipartisan legislation eyeing more, made little sense, Aaron Blake writes in the Washington Post. The administration said current sanctions were already "serving as a deterrent." Blake says there are two "gaping logical holes" in that reasoning.
"The first is that the legislation was meant as a punishment, not a deterrent. The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act explicitly says at the top that it is 'to provide congressional review and to counter aggression by the Governments of Iran, the Russian Federation, and North Korea, and for other purposes.' The law says it's about 'countering' something, rather than preventing something. And while it lists Iran and North Korea, it was widely billed as a response to Russian interference in the 2016 election," Blake writes.
"The second problem is that, even if it were a successful deterrent, it doesn't seem to be deterring the specific behavior that spurred the sanctions. Mere hours before the State Department issued this statement ahead of the deadline for imposing sanctions, CIA Director Mike Pompeo said that Russia hadn't really scaled back its election interference efforts."
| | Berlusconi, Italy's Wise Man? | | | Silvio Berlusconi won't be prime minister – at least not immediately -- after March elections in Italy, thanks to a fraud conviction. But make no mistake – he's back. And this time, he's playing the role of elder statesman, suggests Jason Horowitz in The New York Times.
Berlusconi "has been investigated over accusations of mob links…[and] used his sprawling media empire to stay in power," Horowitz writes. "He made a habit of embarrassing Italy on the global stage."
"And yet, in a measure of how unpredictable global politics have become, things have come back around for the pre-Trump era's leading personification of conflicts of interest, outsize appetites and the politics of victimization and press demonization. In the age of President Trump — comparisons to whom Mr. Berlusconi cannot stand — the Italian mogul has successfully recast himself as grandfather, or nonno, to the nation.
"Italian elections, frequent and feuding, are often dismissed as opera buffa offerings from a country that never changes. Not this year. After France and Germany gave the European establishment a breather by beating back far-right wing insurgencies, it is Italy's unpredictable and angry Five Star Movement that worries them. In contrast, Mr. Berlusconi suddenly doesn't look so bad. And the master salesman, as crafty as they come, is obligingly playing the role of wise and moderate statesman." | | How to Understand the Trump-Macron "Bromance" | | It's no surprise that Emmanuel Macron will be the first world leader to make an official state visit to the Trump White House, writes Pierre Briançon for Politico EU. The French President has staked out a pragmatic position over his US counterpart – essential if he wants to succeed in his efforts to make France great again.
"Macron has made clear he thinks that instead of being mocked, Trump ought to be kept in (or brought back into) the circle of Western leaders to discuss and sometimes decide on global affairs. He hasn't lost hope that the US will in the end abide by the Paris climate accord, he thinks that trade issues should be resolved through negotiations and not tariffs, and he knows that little can be solved in the rest of the world, notably in the Middle East, without US participation," Briançon writes.
"The French for their part don't seem to mind. There were no significant protest against Trump's visit last year, in contrast to the mass demonstrations that have been threatened ahead of any Trump trip to the U.K.
"That is not only because anti-U.S. politics have lost ground in France in the last 20 years or so. It has a lot to do with the fact that the French struggle to take Trump seriously — even when he threatens North Korea."
| | How China Tops America on Grand Strategy | | China's massive Belt-and-Road infrastructure initiative is seen by many primarily as an economic project. But that view risks missing the point, suggests Andrew Browne in the Wall Street Journal. To understand why, just look at arguably the finest moment in US foreign policy – the Marshall Plan.
"Belt and Road is mostly about the power of ideas to reshape the world. That's the true comparison with the Marshall Plan, whose outlays—roughly $140 billion in current dollars—were similarly modest against the challenge of piecing together a shattered continent," Browne writes.
"In fact, the Marshall Plan's lasting legacy wasn't factories, schools and hospitals built with US loans but its contribution to the values that underpinned the postwar liberal order—free trade, democracy and rules-based governance under strong multilateral institutions."
"At Davos, many in the global elites cheer [Chinese President Xi Jinping] and his top lieutenants as they rail against US protectionism and laud Belt and Road as 'Globalization 2.0.'"
"Maybe they've suspended their skepticism. Or given up on America. Either way, the winning grand strategy is China's." | | | | | | |
